Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
I admit that I'm stretching the meanings of the word, but I can't think of any other way to prove my point. It also raises an interesting point.
The point I'm making is that you can't wave away the evidence behind religion objectively because doing so is purely subjective. Beyond a certain point you're believing the words/findings of other people; you're believing that your own sensory input isn't being fooled into seeing things. When it comes down to religious accounts we can say that it sounds unrealistic, but we don't know what really happened. Was it just a story? Was there a hint of truth in it? Was it written to be metaphorical? Did these seemingly unrealistic events really happen? If you pick the first or last possibility that I mentioned you're likely either a skeptic/Athiest or a religious follower. It's totally subjective, you're simply choosing an opinion (to use a new word instead of belief) on it. For all intents and purposes in every-day life, we have to make conclusions and we can't be overly insecure of our knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that, but especially when it comes to subjects like religion, please be open to new possibilities.
|
I understand your point about being "open" to possibilities, but this just sounds like one big "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Science isnt 100% on anything, but it IS safe to consider it 99.99% on alot of things due to its rigorous methodology of peer review and constant retesting of its established theories (they are STILL constantly retesting the theory of relativity, gravity, evolution, etc), and as such the reasonable thing to do is to treat its current conclusions as "truth" untill actually disproven via the same methodology.
You say we should be "open to new possibilities" with regards to religious claims. However just because their is a "possibility" that something might change down the line doesnt mean we should be treating scientific conclusions to be anywhere near on the same level as other peoples personal faith based claims (regardless of the number) just because they are reached via "human senses". Part of the whole point of the scientific method is to ensure that what we percieve through our human senses is as true as can reasonably be and it has more than shown itself to be accurate in that regard. To just say
"Human senses are flawed, therefore scientific conclusions and religious opinions are equally possible" is just one big logical fallacy that doesnt get us anywhere.
As well, just because someone takes a stance on something, like say atheism in my case, doesn't mean that they are NOT open to a change in their stance. Its just that given what we currently know about reality and the universe via the scientific method, it really needs to be something beyond the claims made in religious literature or the personal claims of the followers of any religion. I'm pretty sure most if not all of the atheists here would agree with this. Richard Dawkins made an interesting point in his book
The God Delusion to the effect that if the fundamental constants that took effect after the "Big Bang" which govern the physical laws of the universe were ever properly shown to be more "finely tuned" as apposed to naturally occuring, then a "god hypothesis" might not be quite so far out of the question. However, there is of course
nothing yet that points to any "fine tuning", and hell, even IF there ever was, it and of itself wouldnt mean that most of the claims of the bible or other religious literature are actually any more true to their word, it would simply mean there is some sort of other power at work in the universe that we hadnt yet observed.